The Wolverine: Covering University of Michigan Football and Sports
Issue link: https://comanpub.uberflip.com/i/1547256
NOVEMBER 2026 ❱ THE WOLVERINE 65 F reshman quarterback Tommy Carr provided Michigan foot- ball with a spark it desperately needed against Penn State. With sopho- more quarterback Bryce Underwood at the helm in the first half, the Wolver- ines were shut out and tallied only 80 yards (3.48 yards per play). With Carr at the helm in the second half, they shifted into drive. Their 221 total yards (7.37 YPP) nearly tripled their figure in the first half. They found paydirt three times and eclipsed 20 points in a game for only the second time this season. In short, Michigan's offense actually looked functional. As a result, there may be a notion that head coach Kyle Whittingham's and offensive coordinator Jason Beck's quarterback change from Underwood to Carr will be a turning point in the 2026 campaign. That U-M can convert this new offensive confidence into a second- half run. However, the wise advice would be to halt that hype train — or hype Carr — before it gets loose. Although Michigan's offense was much improved with Carr at the con- trols, it was not due to Carr's right arm. First, it was the Wolverines' run of- fense that came alive rather than their aerial attack. Of U-M's 221 total yards in the second half, 174 were on the ground (7.6 yards per carry). Beck utilized more north and south runs that had been a staple of Michigan's rushing approach under previous regimes, and it paid off. According to Pro Football Focus, the Wolverines had 5 runs for 10-plus yards in the second half. All 5 were right up the middle, including a 43-yard touch- down by senior Bryson Kuzdzal, a 41- yard scamper by freshman Savion Hiter that got U-M out of the shadow of its end zone and a 22-yard sprint by Carr that set up a U-M score at the 1-yard line. Arguably, there may have been more room for Michigan to run because op- posing defenses were not stacking the box as much as they were with Under- wood behind the center, but this dif- ference in rushing success seemed to be more a shift in play-calling than anything else. According to PFF, 45.1 percent of Michigan's runs, exclud- ing quarterback scrambles, sneaks and kneels, against Penn State were up the middle (14-of-31). That rate had been 14.1 percent in Michigan's first five con- tests (23-of-156). While the Nittany Li- ons have a porous run defense (118th in YPC allowed), this is a signal that Beck's run calls had more of an impact than Carr did on Oct. 17. Second, Michigan's defense was op- portunistic and forced 3 critical take- aways in the second half after causing none in the first half. Notably, all 3 led to touchdowns for Michigan, with two of them setting Carr up with short fields (13 and 43 yards), and the other ending a promising PSU possession. As such, to lead Michigan to this vic- tory, Carr did not have to maneuver the Wolverines down long fields time af- ter time. In fact, he only did it once — an 11-play, 74-yard touchdown drive. All five other possessions that he led that did not end in a kneeldown had no more than 4 plays or went fewer than 44 yards. Carr greatly benefited from the situations U-M's defense generated for him. This is further evidenced by Carr's passing numbers. Beck called only 8 dropbacks to 22 designed runs in the second half. Removing the 1 sack Carr took, he completed 5-of-7 throws for 47 yards (6.7 YPA). While his average depth of target was a healthy 13.3 yards, both of his attempts that traveled more than 20 yards fell incomplete. Carr com- pleted only 1 pass more than 10 yards downfield — for 11 yards — and all his other throws were short distances. The positive is that Carr's processing and decision-making seemed to be much smoother than Underwood's, but de- spite the win, Carr did not demonstrate that he is ready to carry this team. That is not to say that Carr is not ready. He may be. It just was not on display against Penn State. It also was a concern that, on the third-and-9 when Carr ran the speed option for the clinching touchdown, Beck opted to be conservative and run the ball rather than throw it. Yes, it worked, but in most situations, that would be stopped short of a first down and U-M would kick a field goal to go up only 6 points. It would have set up Penn State for a game-winning drive much like against Iowa. If Beck has more confidence in Carr, he needs to let Carr rip it and make the play with his arm. When that starts to happen, and when Carr starts to guide U-M on long pos- sessions more frequently, then maybe this Michigan team can turn around its fortunes for the rest of 2026. But unless or until that happens, Michigan should be wary that Carr is the answer to all its issues. ❑ INSIDE THE NUMBERS ❱ DREW HALLETT Halt the Hype Carr Although Tommy Carr provided a needed spark for Michigan against Penn State, it was actu- ally U-M's 174 second-half rushing yards that made the primary difference. PHOTO BY LON HORWEDEL Staff writer Drew Hallett has covered Michigan athletics since 2013. Contact him at drew.c.hallett@gmail.com and follow him on X (Twitter) @DrewCHallett.